Case Summary - Jose Carmen Saavedra v. State

A jury convicted Jose Carmen Saavedra of aggravated sexual assault of a child, in this case, his step-daughter. During the trial, the State introduced testimony from a detective that Saavedra had admitted to a Spanish interpreter that he had committed the offense. The interpreter did not testify at trial, and the detective did not understand Spanish.

The Dallas Court of Appeals held in an unpublished opinion that the admission of this testimony was harmful error and remanded for a new trial. The court of appeals rejected the State's argument that it should adopt the "language conduit" rule followed in Austin and the First District Court of Appeals in Houston. This rule would allow for the admission of the interpreter's testimony over a hearsay objection after the looking at the following four factors: (1) who supplied the interpreter; (2) did the interpreter have a motive to mislead or distort; (3) the interpreter's qualifications and language skills; and (4) whether subsequent actions are consistent with the statement. The court of appeals, however, rejected the State's invitation because it felt bound to follow its own previous holding in Durbin v. Hardin, 775 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. App--Dallas, writ denied).

The Court of Criminal Appeals did not feel so bound. The CCA vacated the court of appeals decision and pretty much adopted the "language conduit" rule followed in Austin and Houston including the consideration of the four factors described above. It noted that the opinion in Durbin was based upon an interpretation of common law, and the promulgation of the Texas Rules of Evidence had supplanted the common law. Under Rule 801(e)(2)(C) or (D), an admission by a party opponent made through an interpreter can be admissible without calling the interpreter to testify if that interpreter is acting as an agent of the party opponent. And because the Court would've had to remand anyway to consider Saavedra's factual sufficiency claim, the Court remands for the court of appeals to not only consider factual sufficiency, but also whether the interpreter's interpretation could properly be admitted under the language conduit rule.

Presiding Judge Keller concurred in the result without an opinion. Here's a link to the CCA case info. [I tried to link to the court of appeals case info, but I screwed it up. I'll try to go back and fix it later.]